Tomas Hlavaty <t...@logand.com> writes: Hi Tomas,
>> The notion of 'tail-recursion' does not have any meaning in an >> interpreted language like PicoLisp, since its only for compiler >> optimizations -right? > > I think you are confusing the terms. What you are probably after is > called tail call optimisation (TCO), which is an optimisation that can > be applied to tail calls. tail-recursion is definitely one way to name it, there are a lot of usage examples around, e.g. ,-------------------------------------------------- | http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Tail_recursion `-------------------------------------------------- but TCO might be a more accurate term, or lets put it like this - many books about compiled languages state that tail-recusrion is important because it enables TCO. > There are interpreters that require TCO, e.g. PostScript. In my > JavaScript implementation of PostScript > <http://logand.com/sw/wps/index.html>, I used trampoline to implement it > http://logand.com/picowiki.html#sec-14 and optimize stack growth. As > shown in the examples, one can use the technique in PicoLisp too, > althought it doesn't compose well. nice example, thanks for the link! -- cheers, Thorsten -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
